Ask Me Later is the home of the Kane Watch. But we're not the only one keeping an eye on the infamous Milwaukee columnist. If you'd like to have something posted to the Kane Watch, or be added to the Kane Watch archives, just send an e-mail to the address available on our Contact page.

But so far as Eugene Kane is concerned, as well as Mike Plaisted (who I personally think gave up his right to meaningful discourse the day he made "wing-nut" an oft-used term in the points he attempts to make), comparing the annual shenanigans performed by a sub-set of party-goers to one crazed family of five is somehow apt.

Um...no.

They claim the lack of response regarding the 74-year-old'sknuckle headed antics by the conservative, white, right-leaning, hood-wearing, Sykes-following masses is telling.

Um...no.

They're different. And if they can't, or are unwilling, to tell the difference, then so be it. But, quite frankly, if they're so lacking in the ability to tell the difference between the two incidents, it's no problem but their own.

I'm sick and tired of the comparisons and analogies columnists, bloggers and commenters alike try to make in defense of their positions. Most recently I watched as an Ask Me Later reader attempted to compare the plight of an illegal immigrant, someone who voluntarilysnuck into this country, to that of Rosa Parks, who was obviously a legal citizen denied the rights granted to her by the Constitution. Challenged with this, the reader spun further into obscurity by comparing the illegal immigrant to a slave who attempted to escape from his master pre-bellum. Nevermind that the slave was dragged to this nation in shackles for a life of forced-servitude, for some reason the reader believed comparing the him or her to a Mexican citizen who willingly entered this nation, broke its immigration laws and brazenly volunteered his illegal status to a federal agent was somehow appropriate.

They aren't the same.

Folks, there's a sale on apples.

There's a coupon for oranges in the Sunday paper.

One special cannot be applied to the other.

____________________________________________*As an aside, I joked to a country music fan friend of mine that this seems exactly like the type of family who would enjoy a country music festival

7 Comments:

Great post. This is very typical of that side. In philosophy this type of argument falls under the category of Informal Fallacies, specifically Questionable Analogy.

It's really not that they don't know the two examples have nothing in common, it's that their argument has no leg to stand on, so they have to borrow from valid ones.

Like I said, typical.

And the saddest point is: They can argue all day that what happened at Country Thunder deserved media attention, but what good will it do? What problem is there to be solved that affects the people of Oshkosh on a daily basis?

Absolutely nothing.

And that's the point of most liberal crap. Distract everyone from the real problems or make excuses to keep the people of the inner city down.

Actually, it is human nature. Most liberal blogs do not look to closely at the failings of those on their side, unless it is egregious. But the same can be said about most right wing blogs.

An appropiate analogy would be if you, or someone from the group you identify with, is walking down the street, and stumble, your first reaction is to look at what made you trip. If the person is a member of a group you dislike, rationally or not, and they stumble, your first thought tends to be that it is a character (or genetic) flaw on their part.

As far as the media coverage, that can be simply ascribed to geography. I spend a lot of time in central Wisconsin, and have the opportunity to read the Stevens Point Journal or the Appleton Crescent on a semi-regular basis, as well as watch the TV news from Wausau and Green Bay. Guess what. They rarely cover stories from Milwaukee, unless they are so blatant that they deserve it, but even then, it is usually mentioned only in passing. They do have crime up there, and that is what they cover. Expecting Milwaukee media to give more coverage to the incident in Oshkosh would be like expecting the media to report on every shooting in Chicago. Ain't gonna happen, unless, of course, it is particularly gruesome or noteworthy.

Hey, Immanuel Kantankerous. What's the name of that old leap in logic when you take one person's point of view and attribute it to an entire group?

I especially enjoyed your use of the word "typical" to attack your e-prey (grrr). It's so sexy, not to mention so, so pleasingly ironic.

Oops. You must be screaming, "Paralipsis!"

"Distract everyone from the real problems or make excuses to keep the people of the inner city down."

The question I've been dying to have answered: how is not interacting with anyone from the "inner city" while relentlessly denigrating them in cyberspace HELPFUL? Did you miss the unit in your philosophy lessons on DELUSION?

I suspect you are not really interested in helping at all. Sadists are like that. (Deduction mine)

You mean, "But this year, the GOP message managers are having to dig so deep into the pit of right-wing-fringe quackery just to get a pulse, I don’t think there is any way they can come back with a mainstream message that would satisfy a majority that is openly rolling their eyes at stale Republican tactics. If the theme song for 2004 was (or should have been) the Who’s "Won’t Get Fooled Again", the song for ‘08 (if it wasn't so obscure) may well be "Clown Strike" by Elvis Costello: "Even a clown knows when to strike."

As usual, the GOP message is driven by talking-points sent out to pathetic lackeys on wing-nut radio and their thin-shadow blogger-buddies. The message having been driven like a spike into the heads of the wrongly-faithful, the pitiful bunch of Republicans running for president can only sign on to the warped agenda and hang on for dear life."

is not considered reasonable discourse? I've seen some liberal bloggers just coo over what Plaisted writes and I just don't see it. At what possible level could anyone meaningfully engage Plaisted in dialogue if this is the starting point?

However I find it hard to take anything you have to say at much value given that you know very little about me and obviously didn't read what I wrote very well but somehow you were able to (wrongly) draw the following conclusions:

1) That I am a sadist.2) That I do not interact with anyone from the inner city3) That when I use the term "liberal crap" it encompasses all liberal thought (a condition you put on the statement, not me; although now that I think about it I can see how easy it would be for one to draw that conclusion).

Here's an example of drawing a conclusion from fact: Based on your comments above, you are a mud-slinging, quick to judge, hothead who can't make an argument without (making a very pathetic attempt at) getting personal.

Strong form. Keep at it. Well done.

And, like I said in my original post, rather than debate the context of the situation (a nut-job firing off some shots next to a concert vs. scores of people attacking motorists) here's another case of picking the most useless point and beating it to death.

What good does talking (anywhere) about the problems in Milwaukee do? A lot. Our mayor has his head in the sand, one of our alderman (allegedly) is adding to the problems and the most outspoken columnist in the city doesn't seem to think there's much of a problem at all.

If we're not talking about it, who will?

But then, I live in the city. I pay for these problems. I don't know where you live, and (unlike you) I'm not going to make any assumptions about where you live.

You want to know what I do on a daily basis that helps the inner city residents?

I still go there. I go to gas stations and spend my money there. I still go to restaurants in the inner city. I work with people from the inner city. I drive through the inner city on a daily basis on my way to work.

Just this week, I offered to give a ride to a woman who was being harassed by a man on the street. I pulled my car over, while I was calling the cops and offered the woman a ride. She seemed to find my actions helpful.

What do I do to help the people of the inner city? I don't make excuses for them. I don't assume that they need lower standards because they're not smart enough, or hard working enough. That said, probably the most important thing I do for the people of the inner city is pay my taxes.

So, now I'm curious, what do you do for the residents of the inner city? I mean, that is, if you live in Milwaukee.

PPS. The BK on MLK does not necessarily constitute going to restaurants in the 'inner city.'

PPPS. You want me to make a point about the argument? OK, I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about as far as Country USA = My Side Rules! But to argue that one class of people has a moral high ground to another is so infantile and tired. Pathologies exist in everyone, everywhere, every time, regardless of, oh, fuck, you know my bullshit liberal jive already, so, that is why I just feel like concentrating on this portion of my argument: Suck it. Please think about this for a minute or two before going on.

PPPS. Based on the senseless, parroted, pseudo right-wing blowhard babble that oozes from your yellow teethed wretch-hole (muddy enough?), I can only assume that you truly have little historical framework of the inner city situation, i.e. you have never truly studied it, probably never read a legitimate book about it, don't get it, and won't get it. Stacy, I've heard/read scholars - you are no scholar. Please, face up to it. And NASCAR-like balls-out git-r-done spidy sense is not a well-founded premise. See the Bush administration.

PPPPS. Talking about it does not mean you are helping. Your mind is made up. You ask no questions. You have no interest in authentic dialogue evident in your above (above above) response. You are merely bitching. There is a difference, and one free of nuance.

PPPPPS. I will not make excuses for you nor will I lower my standards. You are pretentious and shallow and pretentious and callous and. oh, by the way, pretentious. You are the grownup, enamored by the muscles and the melodrama, yelling at a professional wrestling match - Sykes and Belling your Hogan and Savage; Kane your Iron Sheik. So, yes, Stacy. I am getting personal. Much like your crusade to tough-love all those asshole poor people, I’m trying to help you.

Fantesticle, I know who you are just as much as you know who Cantankerous is. You've slept on my couch. And as much as I wish I would have been on that very couch with you (you know it...you know you do!), I have to say that I'm also quite familiar with your argument.